I really don't understand how it's a hassle. It took less than an hour to install 10.8 and all I did was click "install". woke up the next morning and everything worked great. It's about as hassle free as possible and runs like a charm on a 2011 11" air with 4gigs of ram.

At the very best, you're $20 bucks poorer and you lost an hour. That's not much to pay, but what did you gain? There may very well be some "must have" feature in 10.8 that persuaded you. But I don't see the benefit.

And, it would seem you are much luckier in your upgrade process than me. I have NEVER had a flawless system upgrade. Something always breaks. Often times, it's something minor, maybe update an affected application. Sometimes it's major – clean install.

At the very best, you're $20 bucks poorer and you lost an hour. That's not much to pay, but what did you gain? There may very well be some "must have" feature in 10.8 that persuaded you. But I don't see the benefit.

And, it would seem you are much luckier in your upgrade process than me. I have NEVER had a flawless system upgrade. Something always breaks. Often times, it's something minor, maybe update an affected application. Sometimes it's major – clean install.

It's just not worth the risk and potential time suckage.

If you're worried about something breaking, then just don't install the new OS immediately when it comes out. Wait till whatever critical pieces of software you use have been updated, then update the OS – that way you don't miss a beat.

If you don't think the upgrade is worth $20 and only an hour of downtime, then I assume you've never installed an OS upgrade ever? Because Mountain Lion is about the easiest and least expensive OS upgrade ever...

Yes, there are improvements in 10.8 that make it much better than our beloved and coveted 10.4 (still my favourite). It's 64-bit clean, it has better security, it's faster, it can handle more RAM, the App Store is actually useful (I hated it at first, but you know, I actually buy from it now as a first source), it has better support for newer browsers that cope with modern web standards, and it'll be able to run the new iTunes 11 which, apparently, is going to be "great" and "less of a RAM whore" (sic).

However one improvement that has continuously failed to appear is an update to OpenGL ... I mean they're trying to "bring gaming back to the Mac" but they don't keep one of the core gaming assemblies up to date? Fapple.

And as for the forcing of hardware upgrades... You don't remember in the late 90s when OS 8 caused all that brouhaha with dropping the remaining Motorola chipset codes from the OS? You don't remember Early OS X being such a memory hog that everyone looked at the minimum operating specs and laughed bitterly?

The only major break in compatibility in recent times has been Snow Leopard and the drop of legacy PPC emulation - oh no, the last PowerPC Mac was released in 2006, a full 6 years ago. 6 years is long enough to feel happy about retiring any machine, be it a laptop that's dropping behind The New Standard, or a car that does 30-40,000 miles a year, or even your faithful old vacuum cleaner that's starting to smell a bit warm and ozone-y when you use it.

Now while I can accept that you want to keep your computer for as long as possible (I still have my PowerMac 6200 in the loft, she gets turned on whenever I want to play early-90s videogames authentically) you're going to run into trouble even if all you are doing is browsing the web. For example, Flash, HTML5 and Java support. If you keep running, for example, Tiger, you're pretty soon going to be stuck for viewing anything new created with Flash because the next version of Flash Player won't work on Tiger at all, even with hacks. Same for future Java releases, which will leave your computer vulnerable to exploits that you cannot plug.

In short, change happens. Usually for the better. Now I cannot lie that there aren't some elements of 10.8 that I don't use (Mission Control is useless, heck I don't even use Dashboard and we've had that for years) but when you weigh in the system stability and usability improvements over the fact that yes, you will have to upgrade your computer every half-decade or so out of necessity (and since when was THIS news? Ask anyone with a Windows PC...) it's really no contest. The improvements far outshine the problem of having to upgrade hardware.

Mountain Lion is about the easiest and least expensive OS upgrade ever...

Why is it so much better than Lion or even Snow Leopard? Like I said, there may be some great benefit for some. But for me, it's not worth $20 and one hour. And it's never just one hour.

What I mean is, if you don't think upgrading to Mountain Lion is worth the time or cost, then you must not think any OS upgrade (Mac or Windows) is worth the time or cost either, since ML is about as easy and inexpensive as it gets. It's $19, you click one button, and you wait an hour. That's it.

I've installed every version of OS X from 10.1 through 10.8 and never had any issues.

Why is it so much better than Lion or even Snow Leopard? Like I said, there may be some great benefit for some. But for me, it's not worth $20 and one hour. And it's never just one hour.

You realize you're arguing that you can't think of any reasons to upgrade, and when we say, "one reason is they've made things better, like the upgrade process", your argument is "the upgrade process with my old version isn't very good"? The install process in general on 10.8 is pretty great. You don't need to keep track of any media. You don't install an outdated version that needs to be updated right away. Right there are two more things about a newer OS that would make you more productive. Someday you'll need to install the OS, and this will save you time; more productive.

I've installed every version of OS X from 10.1 through 10.8 and never had any issues.

I kind of don't believe you. You've NEVER had ANY issues with over ten years of system releases? I shouldn't be so distrusting, you could just be lucky.

In a past life, part of my job, was to administer a couple of dozen production Macs. By far, the biggest time waster was troubleshooting OS updates. And we never updated on a point oh release. If the OS update itself wasn't problematic, then the resulting applications updates always broke something. It was so common, that we'd actually isolate one Mac before updating the rest. We'd update just one, and let it run for a month or so before even considering rolling out the update to the other Macs. It's a pretty common practice and I know we weren't the only shop to err on the side of caution by quarantining.

Some people upgrade because it's shiny and life on the bleeding edge is exciting. I get this. Others update because some new feature looks appealing or has a practical benefit. I get this too. I only update when I absolutely have to. I have the ain't-broke-don't-fix-it mentality.

your argument is "the upgrade process with my old version isn't very good"? The install process in general on 10.8 is pretty great.

That's really not my argument. I'm saying regardless of how easy the update process is (it only take on hour!) unless the update addresses a specific problem that I'm experience then it's likely not worth it. I have never (been a Mac professional for a couple of decades) had a flawless system update. Something ALWAYS goes wrong. Often times minor things. Often times not. Why risk it?

your argument is "the upgrade process with my old version isn't very good"? The install process in general on 10.8 is pretty great.

That's really not my argument. I'm saying regardless of how easy the update process is (it only take on hour!) unless the update addresses a specific problem that I'm experience then it's likely not worth it. I have never (been a Mac professional for a couple of decades) had a flawless system update. Something ALWAYS goes wrong. Often times minor things. Often times not. Why risk it?

Because backup drives? Because new features and better stability and modern apps? Because OS updates are a specific problem you're experiencing that new versions have addressed? Because even if things go worst case scenario it takes like 3 hours to do a clean install and copy all your old files over?

you: "Something ALWAYS goes wrong [with software updates, it's a problem that I'm experiencing with OS X]"you: "Unless the update addresses a specific problem that I'm experience then it's likely not worth it"me: "The updates address software updates"you: "Yeah but it's not worth the risk because of the problem with software updates"

I realize I'm trying to convince someone over the internet to install software they don't want, and that's a terrible use of my time, but I seriously don't get it.

Because even if things go worst case scenario it takes like 3 hours to do a clean install and copy all your old files over?

Right. This pretty much is my point. Three hours!

But still this isn't the worse case scenario. You're thinking small potatoes. Real world example: 10.5.3 (if I remember correctly) couldn't reliably save/open Adobe CS3 files on a server. Crap would just disappear, but not consistently enough that we knew it was related to the 10.5.3 update. It took days of troubleshooting to figure out what the hell was going on. OS client problem? Server problem? Network issue? User issue? Adobe issue? Just a blip?

This wasn't just an issue of reinstalling and salvaging one Mac. Valuable content was disappearing before it could even be backed up. Money was being lost.

If we had installed 10.5.3 (a point three release!) on all of our production machines instead of just one, we would have been screwed.

Look, if you think the 10.8 update (the process and the OS) are the bees knees then go for it. I was just chiming in with the OP in his original assessment that OS updates since 10.6 seem kind of not worthwhile. I just think that, when it comes to computers, caution always wins.

I mean, sure, Twitter and Facebook integration is completely useless for anyone who is not a narcissist, but 10.7 bought us [url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/13/]full disk encryption ...

Is full disk encryption actually working now? I thought it was out for a few years and caused some catastrophic loss of data so people were recommending against turning it on for your home drive.

I was still under the impression it's too risky to use. I suppose that's the risk Apple or any tech company assumes when they release something too early. Maybe it got fixed a year and a half ago when 10.7 came out but when I first learned about it, it was broken and I never received the memo telling me they bothered to implement it correctly.

I mean, sure, Twitter and Facebook integration is completely useless for anyone who is not a narcissist, but 10.7 bought us [url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/13/]full disk encryption ...

Is full disk encryption actually working now? I thought it was out for a few years and caused some catastrophic loss of data so people were recommending against turning it on for your home drive.

I was still under the impression it's too risky to use. I suppose that's the risk Apple or any tech company assumes when they release something too early. Maybe it got fixed a year and a half ago when 10.7 came out but when I first learned about it, it was broken and I never received the memo telling me they bothered to implement it correctly.

FileVault 2 works just fine. I've been using it on both of my Macs since 10.7 came out, and I've had zero issues with it. No data loss, no instability, no being locked out of my drive needlessly. They revamped how it worked in 10.7, and it's been great since.

Home folder encryption would get most of your personal data and settings, but it won't cover the OS itself, anything in /Applications, and whatever else might sit in a cache or settings elsewhere on the computer. Some system logs I'm sure are kept outside the home folder, as well as some system settings. Someone with a better knowledge of OS X's inner-workings could go into exact detail I'm sure.

Essentially, if you plug in a hard drive that has full disc encryption enabled, the person won't be able to see anything on there. Whereas if it's just the home folder that is encrypted, they could root around elsewhere and still find some things. I'm not sure if the old FileVault disabled auto-login completely or what, but with FileVault 2, you can't boot the machine without a username and password that has been authorized to boot up the machine.

If we had installed 10.5.3 (a point three release!) on all of our production machines instead of just one, we would have been screwed.

Which is why you install upgrades on a machine and test them. If they don't work for you then you skip them. Since you did this you were fine.

Tsur wrote:

Look, if you think the 10.8 update (the process and the OS) are the bees knees then go for it. I was just chiming in with the OP in his original assessment that OS updates since 10.6 seem kind of not worthwhile. I just think that, when it comes to computers, caution always wins.

Problem is that if you take it to extremes you get stuck with obsolete software / hardware.

I've seen this happening a few times now. People avoid upgrading because they have "perfected" their workflow. Then when they are forced to upgrade (due to hardware failure, new hardware, etc) they find they are having to changes large parts of their workflow.

I avoid this by actively changing my workflow to take advantage of new releases. When I look at a new release I check and see what parts of my workflow I can optimise. What things do I no-longer have to do because of Apple...? What things are easier...? What things can I change for the better.

This way I'm not bitten by large changes. It also means I stay competitive with others.

Actually, Mac OS X releases have slowed down until the most recent one.10.5 to 10.6: 22 months10.6 to 10.7: 23 months10.7 to 10.8: 12 months

I don't see the huge narrowing of system support in upcoming OS releases - as a result, as long as the pricing remains low, then I don't see a downside with yearly releases. At least not until we transition to Apple A8 ARM architecture processors. *grin*

I wonder if Apple knew they dropped the ball with 10.7 and released 10.8 a lot more quickly for that reason because they knew it sucked? And now we might go back to a 2 year cycle until 10.9 drops?

Nope.

Quote:

OS X — is going on an iOS-esque one-major-update-per-year development schedule.

I mean, sure, Twitter and Facebook integration is completely useless for anyone who is not a narcissist, but 10.7 bought us [url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/13/]full disk encryption ...

Is full disk encryption actually working now? I thought it was out for a few years and caused some catastrophic loss of data so people were recommending against turning it on for your home drive.

I was still under the impression it's too risky to use. I suppose that's the risk Apple or any tech company assumes when they release something too early. Maybe it got fixed a year and a half ago when 10.7 came out but when I first learned about it, it was broken and I never received the memo telling me they bothered to implement it correctly.

I've been running it since it was released, I had some initial "awkwardness" because the rescue utilities Apple provided didn't handle fully encrypted disks properly, the extent of which meant you couldn't run Disk Utilities check disk on an encrypted disk, but they addressed that. My work laptop has been running it fine.

Not to derail the thread, but since the OP kind of digressed I have a question about disk encryption too. What is the practical benefit of full disk encryption vs home folder encryption?

Essentially what Mr. Kruegar said. Things like swap files weren't originally encrypted, and occasionally you could get an un-hashed password stored in there. It tended to depend on the application developer though. Whole disk encryption should mean that if someone makes off with the HDD, there's nothing they can get from it.

Look, if you think the 10.8 update (the process and the OS) are the bees knees then go for it. I was just chiming in with the OP in his original assessment that OS updates since 10.6 seem kind of not worthwhile. I just think that, when it comes to computers, caution always wins.

Problem is that if you take it to extremes you get stuck with obsolete software / hardware.

I've seen this happening a few times now. People avoid upgrading because they have "perfected" their workflow. Then when they are forced to upgrade (due to hardware failure, new hardware, etc) they find they are having to changes large parts of their workflow.

I avoid this by actively changing my workflow to take advantage of new releases. When I look at a new release I check and see what parts of my workflow I can optimise. What things do I no-longer have to do because of Apple...? What things are easier...? What things can I change for the better.

This. Unfortunately, keeping up with hardware and software upgrades can be expensive. But no where near as expensive as sitting on your hands until everything you have is out of date, because then you have to upgrade _everything_. And the danger is that upgrading everything can be an arduous multistage project when you run into some code that can't be directly updated from your old copy to current, but has to be stepped through some or all of the intervening versions.

I've had to do that, it wasn't fun, and the developer was very lucky he didn't live in this country or his life would have been shortened significantly.

This. Unfortunately, keeping up with hardware and software upgrades can be expensive. But no where near as expensive as sitting on your hands until everything you have is out of date, because then you have to upgrade _everything_.

Yep. Plus, I'm a freelancer and it's easier to budget for incremental upgrades to hardware and software on (relatively) predictable cycles than to wait until something breaks catastrophically and have to find the cash and time for a major hardware and software upgrade due to some arbitrary external circumstance.

Also: I've tried both the strategy of running hardware into the ground and replacing only when absolutely necessary (when the hardware has a resale value of ±0) and two-yearly upgrades, taking advantage of a reasonable resale value of the kit to subsidise the new purchase. TCO calculated annually is pretty much the same, but under the latter scheme, I get new hardware every two years.

Which is why you install upgrades on a machine and test them. If they don't work for you then you skip them. Since you did this you were fine.

Well the damage was mitigated. Like I said, we lost at least 2-3 days trying to figure out why random files were disappearing.

Joel_B wrote:

People avoid upgrading because they have "perfected" their workflow. Then when they are forced to upgrade (due to hardware failure, new hardware, etc) they find they are having to changes large parts of their workflow.

You exactly understand my mindset. I love"perfected" workflow and only change it when forced. And it certainly is traumatic when it has to change, but when all goes well it's a beautiful thing.

I've installed every version of OS X from 10.1 through 10.8 and never had any issues.

I kind of don't believe you. You've NEVER had ANY issues with over ten years of system releases? I shouldn't be so distrusting, you could just be lucky.

Nothing major, no.

First Mac was an iMac G4 in 2002 that came with 10.1 preinstalled and a disc for 10.2. I updated to 10.2 right away, no problems at all (of course, the machine was brand new and had nothing on it). That Mac was later updated to 10.3 and 10.4, again no problems that I can recall.

In 2005 I got a PowerBook G4, which came with 10.4. That was only ever updated to 10.5 since 10.6 was Intel-only. No problems.

In 2009, my wife got a white MacBook, which came with 10.5. That was updated to 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8. Only issue I recall is that I had installed a Mail plugin for her to access her Hotmail, which didn't work with 10.6. Shortly after, Microsoft finally allowed POP access for Hotmail, so that made the plugin unnecessary and that was that.

I also have an identical MacBook provided by work that was updated from 10.6 to 10.7 and 10.8 with no issues.

So that's four different machines over ten years, 10.1 through 10.8, and no serious issues with any upgrade. Nothing where I ever lost any data, had to reinstall from a backup, or anything like that. I do always do a full backup before installing an update, of course.

Quote:

In a past life, part of my job, was to administer a couple of dozen production Macs. By far, the biggest time waster was troubleshooting OS updates.

If we're talking about a work environment, that's a totally different scenario. If something ever had gone wrong with updating my personal machines, the worst case scenario is I'd have to do it again from scratch and restore from my backup – which I could do whenever I had the time. Other than the annoyance, not really a big deal. But if you're talking about dozens of Macs in a production environment, you cannot afford to have any downtime whatsoever. That's a completely different situation.

your argument is "the upgrade process with my old version isn't very good"? The install process in general on 10.8 is pretty great.

That's really not my argument. I'm saying regardless of how easy the update process is (it only take on hour!) unless the update addresses a specific problem that I'm experience then it's likely not worth it. I have never (been a Mac professional for a couple of decades) had a flawless system update. Something ALWAYS goes wrong. Often times minor things. Often times not. Why risk it?

The #1 problem with outdated software is security. Apple won't offer security patches for very old systems. Something to think about especially in a business. The second, as I noted, is more about upgrading your applications. Most require 10.7 or even 10.8. If you don't upgrade your software either then that's fine. My Dad was like that and was perfectly content. He was still running a dual 880 G4 on 10.4 until the power supply finally went a few months ago. Completely content.

If you don't need the syncing of iCloud with your iOS devices or other machines, you don't want notifications, don't use Automator, don't care about 64 bit applications, don't update your applications, don't buy new applications, don't network with Windows, and you aren't annoyed with printer issues then stay where you are. It'll be a waste of time. I think that's a narrow niche case but there are definitely people there.

I've installed every version of OS X from 10.1 through 10.8 and never had any issues.

I kind of don't believe you. You've NEVER had ANY issues with over ten years of system releases? I shouldn't be so distrusting, you could just be lucky.

Nothing major, no.

I'm with daGUY. No problem with any OS X versions, all the way from the Classic OS too. And Windows and MS/DR/PC DOS. I've had hardware failures, but that's nothing to do with the OS. Otherwise, most people should never really experience major issues with their OS at all. MS, and Apple, work pretty hard to minimise these problems. Do some people experience problems? Sure. Do those same people consistently experience problems frequent, I hight doubt it. If they do, I'd tell them to buy lottery tickets and then buy the opposite numbers.

Really, you have bigger issues if you consistently have issues with your OS upgrades. Neither MS or Apple makes the process difficult on account it's their business model, and it would be a failure for them to not make the process as painless as possible.

Wow. Not trolling, I'm just genuinely surprised. I bought my first Apple computer at the launch of Lion, and between Lion and ML I've had HEAPS of problems. Don't get me wrong, I love the computers I bought. Lion was crazytown when it first launched, with all the graphics glitches and stuff. Whatever tho. Problems are easy to fix, and I do more screwing around with my comp than most people, so it comes with the territory.

Wow. Not trolling, I'm just genuinely surprised. I bought my first Apple computer at the launch of Lion, and between Lion and ML I've had HEAPS of problems. Don't get me wrong, I love the computers I bought. Lion was crazytown when it first launched, with all the graphics glitches and stuff. Whatever tho. Problems are easy to fix, and I do more screwing around with my comp than most people, so it comes with the territory.

Depends what you mean by screwing around. If you're putting sugar in the fuel tank and stuffing bananas in the exhaust pipe, so to speak, then you're just creating the problems for your self.

And I did say there's a small percentage who may experience problems. However if you consistently experience problems with every update, then either you're intentionally doing things you're not supposed to do, or you just need to buy lots and lots of lottery tickets, and tell me the numbers so I can work out what numbers don't work.

Edit: I should add, I'm really prudent when it comes to reading about every OS update notes before hand. I'll read beta release notes, user experiences etc. to keep an eye of what to avoid and what to expect. I didn't upgrade to Lion for nearly a month because of the initial griping. Once I sorted the noise from the signal, I then made the jump to Lion. Didn't experience any major problem then memory use, but that got fixed by a .2 or .3 update iirc.

I think what's misleading you here is that 10.7 really should have been 11.0.

It was forging ahead in new areas and changing fundamental things about the OS - the user experience, how we interact with apps, how people manage data. It changes the save paradigm, the cloud, app installs and updates, and so on. I know a few parts of this were released earlier, but 10.7 really felt like a watershed where they started turning long-established ways of doing things on their head.

The thing is, I don't see a way for them to substantially change things without going about it the way they are - there is only so much easier you can make document management if you're tied to the current model of Open/Save/Delete and dialog-driven hierarchal file systems. You have to throw away core concepts and start from scratch, and that's what they're doing.

Does that need new hardware? Maybe, maybe not, but the one thing Apple has always done is jettison legacy whenever possible. If it can buy them 10% more efficiency on the current task, they kill as much legacy as possible. That's the complete opposite of Windows, and they're shackled by their attachments to the past at this point. If you noticed, Windows has so much 'drag' that the last few releases have been far MORE painful than in the past - I think they're finally coming around to the understanding that there's only so far that legacy support gains you, and the cost is immense.

Just be happy that Apple resale value is strong, and be prepared to flip your rig occasionally. I'm closing in on 5 years with my Mac Pro and it's almost time.

My workflow is fine with my electric typewriter, I don't get why everyone keeps telling me to "upgrade" to a computer, all everyone seems to do is moan about them!

I can't believe you used an electric typewriter to type this on the internet!

That would be kinda cool if an electric typewriter could connect to the internet and you could clickity clack a response on a forum while simultaneously typing on a piece of paper. wait... let me google-fu something...

One ironic thing I found in the OP was that the entire post is about how Apple is adding too many features and that it's bloating things up and that some features shouldn't be added, or that some should maybe be removed over time.

But then we get down to here:

Quote:

This isn't Apple's fault (entirely) but I am still running the 2004 version of MS Office because Excel took a huge downgrade in the "upgrade" to 2008 and then 2010. You can't do regression analysis natively anymore. Can't blame Apple for that, but I can blame Apple for not developing something better than "Numbers" which sucks shit. Another downgrade over time.

That would be kinda cool if an electric typewriter could connect to the internet and you could clickity clack a response on a forum while simultaneously typing on a piece of paper. wait... let me google-fu something...

As someone who's built hackintoshes - 10.8 was less than an hour. It absolutely was the most hassle free OS since 8.5 to 8.6 more than a decade ago.

Do keep in mind that you won't be able to use any more 32-bit drivers on 10.8.

Also, my 10.8 install on my Hac somehow hosed both my bootloader and something else somewhere in the OS. It actually caused me quite a bit more headache than 10.7, and I ended up doing a fresh install from scratch. But with a hackintosh, I'm not that surprised to have to do a fresh install from scratch.

I noticed a gradual decrease in performance from 10.6 to 10.7/8 in 3D graphics. I used to be able to play Batman: AA in 1680*1050 with everything on max (except AA) with my GT330m (512MB) and 2,66ghz i7 (2010 MBP) in 10.6.

Now, it slows down a lot in the larger areas, and when there are more than about 8 or 9 enemies on screen at once. I know I should know better than to game on a Mac, but it's still annoying.

I noticed a gradual decrease in performance from 10.6 to 10.7/8 in 3D graphics. I used to be able to play Batman: AA in 1680*1050 with everything on max (except AA) with my GT330m (512MB) and 2,66ghz i7 (2010 MBP) in 10.6.

Now, it slows down a lot in the larger areas, and when there are more than about 8 or 9 enemies on screen at once. I know I should know better than to game on a Mac, but it's still annoying.

Odd, I've been getting steadily better 3D performance in TF2, and the Unigine Heaven benchmark on my MacPro, and that's an ATI card. I wonder if Batman AA is using the Compatibility profile rather than the Core profile for GL. Although I wouldn't expect that to slow down.